euroclydon, I'm going to give you a piece of advice: stop trying to make yourself look smart by using "P" and "Q" and whatever. It's not working. All it does is make your posts confusing and impossible to understand, which, IMO, amounts to little more than preaching.

I can take the heat[1], and I'd much rather cook than listen to you. Unfortunately, I'm not hungry, so you're all I've got[2]. That said, your failed attempt to look smart is pretty revealing. You probably can't tell what I mean, but I'm sure other people can.

The "P" and "Q" are superfluous, as the terms to which they are being applied are terms, using English words. Those words can be used in place of P and Q, thus simplifying reading and removing the need to look back at what the variables mean.

If you cannot compose your post without using the "P" and "Q" to keep yourself from getting confused, then the option is always available to take them out after you've finished the post but before the post is submitted.

Well, of course not, and I never implied that you were. If I'm right, then you're avoiding confusion for yourself by using those variables. I'm just saying that you can take them out afterward and your reasoning will be clearer to your audience. That way, you still aren't confused, and neither is anyone else.

^^ you still haven't shown anything to me. Taking the bible and translating it in your own ways won't help your case, either. You're applying symbolic meaning to things that weren't supposed to have symbolic meaning in the first place. You imply that Eve wasn't the first woman created, but rather the first of the 'chosen ones'. I don't see how you have any reasonable argument, so I'll just leave it at that...

Logged

"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger.""If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me. Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

I second the opinion that euroclydon's posts use far too much of this p and q crap, apparantly some attempt to use formal logic on a belief system that depends on faith (and has zero to do with logic).

Basically, I read his posts the same as others who insist on dragging out the meaning of the word 'meaning', without saying anything useful - just a bunch of nonsense dressed up to go out for the evening.

Dressed up or not - it's all still nonsense (and I agree, very close to preaching if not exactly so).

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

I was once told by a Christian that the OT simply points to Jesus and the old laws, excluding the 10 commandments, is no longer relevant. But if they were to read Lev 18 (the Law of Moses), they would say Lev 18 IS relevent.

Something cannot be irrelevent and relevent at the same time. I suppose you think that this is entirely logical though, do you not?

Edit: I like the whole 25 "Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for it's sin, and the land vomited out it's inhabitants."

If an atheist ridicules the Bible with a consistent bombardment of "the Bible is illogical" "that's illogical" "Be logical"...

...AND THEY HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT LOGICAL METHOD OR ITS SYMBOLS!!!! USELESS! HYPOCRITES!

Your capitals are simply untrue. What you suggest is that prior to the use of symbols in logic, logical thought/opinion of the contents of the Bible was the domain of useless hypocrites. I cannot agree with that.

We have no more intelligence, simple better tools and reference works.

Furthermore, it is not at all unreasonable to say that a talking snake with legs, a talking donkey, or walking on water is at all a logical thing to accept.

Then there is a famous cartoon

that explains the logic of miracles.

Basically, if you start with a false assumption, everything that follows is worthless. It certainly is not logic. or, as I would say, "the Bible is illogical" ; )

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Playing labeling and pseudo logic word games no more prove your case than any other purveyor of woo.

What what you accept as good evidence that someone was a wizard, a real spell casting can effect reality wizard? I can be reasonably certain it wouldn't be the same thing you are asking for us to accept for your claims.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

When you begin with an assumption, your entire argument predicates on that assumption being true.

Allow me to use an example to explain why your arguments fail despite their structure, based on your foundational issue:

Harry Potter is a literary series consisting of several books. Over the span of its authorship, it has a remarkable degree of internal consistency; events that happen within the book are, generally, straightforward and comprehensible. The books are internally logical - accepting the core premise of 'magic', they make sense, both in how the world is constructed and how the story fits together around that construct.

However internally consistent the books may be, however, they are not evidence for the existence of magic, only that the supposition that if magic exited, the world would have a certain shape that strongly resembles the world we have now. In Harry's world, London exists. King's Cross Station exists. Little cottages exist. The geography makes sense, and matches up to reality; the characters could be part of our world, except for the magical bits.

Unfortunately, they cannot be considered histories - magic doesn't exist.

If you picked up these books without context, or- even better - with a dust jacket that proclaimed them to be absolutely true in every word, with events that took place in the late 50's - would you, after reading them, consider them histories.. or would it make more sense to point out that magic itself is illogical based on our current understanding of the world, and dismiss them as fantasy?

If the core assumption of 'truth' is illogical - that's the illogic you hear us talk about the most. Donkeys don't talk. People don't rise from the dead. Nobody heals with a touch. Tyre is still standing. Bald men don't send bears out to kill children that ridicule them. These things just ... don't happen. The world doesn't, and as best we can tell, never has worked that way.

You begin from the assumption and viewpoint that the bible is true and is internally consistent. You build all of your logical proofs from these assumptions, and use these assumptions to prove themselves (like you did with the 'who was at the tomb' question). I don't care if the bible had the same level of consistency as Rowling's work - it doesn't make the events true, or make the argument of the faith valid.

The entire flood event (for example) is illogical on its face, given what we know about genetics, migrations, the age of the world, and more (not to mention the thriving societies of c.a. 4000BCE that just didn't notice it happening). That it is internally consistent doesn't help it in the slightest.

Get the point? All of your logic doesn't save you if your core assumptions are insupportable.